Miss S Ketterer v Greater Glasgow Health Board: 4109250/2021
| Judgment Date | 05 January 2022 |
| Citation | 4109250/2021 |
| Date | 05 January 2022 |
| Published date | 14 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4109250/2021
5
Held in Glasgow (by CVP) on 7-9 September 2021 and 29 October 2021
Employment Judge B Beyzade
10
Miss S Ketterer Claimant
Represented by:
Ms. R Wark,
Solicitor
15
Greater Glasgow Health Board Respondent
Represented by:
Ms. K Henderson,
Solicitor
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1.1. The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed.
25
REASONS
Introduction
2. The claimant presented a complaint of unfair dismissal which the respondent
30
denied.
3. A final hearing was held on 7-9 September 2021. This was a hearing held by
CVP video hearing pursuant to Rule 46. The Tribunal was satisfied that the
parties were content to proceed with a CVP hearing, that it was just and
35
equitable in all the circumstances, and that the participants in hearing were
able to see and hear the proceedings. A further hearing date was listed on 29
October 2021 in chambers for deliberations and judgment.
4109250/2021 Page 2
4. The parties prepared and filed a Joint Inventory of Productions in advance of
the hearing consisting of 728 pages.
5. An updated Schedule of Loss was also submitted to the Tribunal by the
5
claimant, albeit the parties agreed that liability issues only would be
determined at the hearing on 7-9 September 2021, and if the claimant were
successful in her claim a separate remedy hearing will be arranged.
6. At the outset of the hearing the parties were advised that the Tribunal would
10
investigate and record the following issues as falling to be determined, both
parties being in agreement with these:
(i) Was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal a potentially fair reason,
within the meaning of s98(1) or (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(the ERA)? The respondent states that the claimant was dismissed due
15
to her conduct.
(ii) Was the claimant’s dismissal for that reason fair in all the
circumstances, in terms of s98(4) ERA?
(iii) Was it reasonable for the respondent to believe that the claimant was
guilty of gross misconduct against the claimant’s contention that no
20
such reason could be ascertained?
(iv) If so, having regard to the tests set out in Burchell v British Home
Stores, had the respondent carried out sufficient investigation so that
at the time of dismissal they had a genuine belief based on reasonable
grounds of the claimant’s misconduct.
25
(v) Was a fair procedure followed with particular reference to any
disciplinary procedures? Did the respondent fail to follow the ACAS
Code of practice on Disciplinary procedures?
(vi) Was dismissal within the band of reasonable responses?
4109250/2021 Page 3
(vii) Should there be a reduction of any compensation in line with the Polkey
case?
(viii) Should there be a reduction of any compensation in view of the
claimant’s contributory conduct?
(ix) If the claimant’s dismissal was unfair, what compensation should be
5
awarded?
7. The Claimant gave evidence at the hearing on her own behalf. Mr C
MacDonald, Head of Adult Services, Ms E Salmon, Professional Nurse Lead,
Ms R MacLeod, Head of Adult Services (Sexual Health, Police Custody and
10
Prison Health Care) and Mr J Hobson, former Assistant Director of Finance
gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.
8. Both parties were represented by solicitors and made written closing
submissions and also provided replies to the other party’s submissions.
References was made to a number of authorities in the Joint List of
15
Authorities, which the Tribunal found informative.
Findings of fact
9. On the documents and oral evidence presented the Tribunal makes the
following essential findings of fact restricted to those necessary to determine
the list of issues -
20
10. Following the claimant’s registration with the NMC on 09 September 2017,
she started working for the respondent as a Staff Nurse Band 5 at the Royal
Infirmary in Glasgow in an Orthopaedics role on 23 October 2017. The
claimant was also employed as a Bank Nurse from 5 March 2018. She started
her role as a Primary Care Nurse at HMP Low Moss on 1 April 2019 and she
25
remained in this role until her employment ended on 11 December 2020.
To continue reading
Request your trial